get_feature_view_details

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. The 'Get' verb strongly implies a read-only retrieval, and 'detailed information' suggests the kind of response expected. However, the description does not mention edge cases, permission requirements, or what happens when the named feature view does not exist.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It puts the action and target immediately up front, which makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter getter, the description plus input schema is probably enough to invoke the tool correctly. Still, since there is no output schema and no annotation information, the description does not explain what the returned details will contain or how errors or missing references are handled.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema is fully documented at 100% coverage, and the 'name' parameter is already explained as 'Name of the feature view'. The description adds only 'specific feature view', which reinforces the parameter's role without adding meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the action ('Get'), the resource ('feature view'), and the scope ('specific'), so the agent can identify this as a single-item detail retrieval rather than a listing tool. It does not explicitly name sibling get_feature_views, but the 'specific' wording is enough to distinguish it from plural/list-style siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrasing clearly implies the usage: use this when you need detailed information about one particular feature view, as opposed to listing all feature views with get_feature_views. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use instructions or alternatives, but the context is reasonably clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.